If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: HITS method of mite control

> I want to call it the Head in the Sand (HITS) method. Going forward

I'd like to propose the same term for people who think that continuing to disrupt the ecology of the hive, continuing to contaminate the entire world beeswax supply with poisons and continuing to perpetuate bees whose genes are weakening the species will result in the salvation of beekeeping... the name fits perfectly...

Re: HITS method of mite control

Ya and while were at it we should stop taking antibiotics and medications because we are breeding weaker and weaker humans... Lets face it, you can argue that chemicals are contrary to ecology etc, and you'd be right, but so is pretty much every human activity. Heck organic farming is contrary to the natural ecology of the field, but in my opinion it's better than foraging for food.

Now don't get me wrong, I try to avoid as many chemicals as possible in the field and the hive, but I will treat when needed, and with so called "soft" chemicals as much as possible. I'm sorry though I don't want feral bees, I want fat happy overly productive bees I can rob from.

Re: HITS method of mite control

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

> I want to call it the Head in the Sand (HITS) method. Going forward

I'd like to propose the same term for people who think that continuing to disrupt the ecology of the hive, continuing to contaminate the entire world beeswax supply with poisons and continuing to perpetuate bees whose genes are weakening the species will result in the salvation of beekeeping... the name fits perfectly...

Re: HITS method of mite control

Originally Posted by rhaldridge

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that there is a single genetic trait that is a silver bullet against varroa. You can order VSH queens, it's true, but here on this forum you can find mention of beekeepers who used these queens and still had colonies killed by mites. These traits are assumed to be markers for survival, and they are chosen for development because they are easy to assess from observation. In a way, it's like looking for the car keys under the streetlight, when you're not really sure you dropped them there. I'm not saying these are bad bees, they are certainly a step in the right direction, but they are not a panacea.

But again, most of us have come to understand as I pointed out that eradication is not a viable goal, and so it doesn't need to be a complete panacea. It doesn't need to destroy 100% of the mites. Any method merely needs to reduce them to manageable levels.

Originally Posted by rhaldridge

By the way, the favorite analogy used by those who think you can't breed resistance to varroa is "you can't breed sheep that are resistant to wolves." There's an interesting video here about a process that resulted in resistant bees, a process which did not involve the procedures you refer to above.

Well, I imagine that's true, but as these bees have not proven to be a panacea, that is something of an irrelevancy. In any case, it isn't yet feasible for beekeepers to II all their stock, so as soon as that VSH queen is used for an open mated queen production operation, or superceded or you split, the resulting colony is no longer descended from controlled genetics.

This is exactly what non-treaters face. The so-called "mite resistant" colonies they claim to be selecting for, although they're really acquiring them by chance, can become non-mite-resistant at any moment due to a swarm or a supercedure. What's saved in the meantime by queening immediately with a known-VSH bee rather than waiting for a superqueen to accidentally bumble into your hives are generations and generations of bees that won't be suffering under a mite infestation while you wait for them to slowly and agonizingly "die out naturally".

Originally Posted by rhaldridge

What do you say to beekeepers who claim that their bees no longer die from mite pressure, and that this was due to letting inferior genetics die out and breeding from survivor colonies? Do you think they're all lying?

Absolutely not; I think every single one of them honestly believes that's what's happened. I don't believe treatment-free beekeepers are charlatans.

What I do believe, however, is that they're making an assumption they simply have no actual evidence for, which they actually cannot have evidence for, and which further is actually unlikely to be true because bees kept out in the world simply can't be genetically controlled in that way - certainly not to the levels claimed by some (one other beekeeper I've read either in this forum or another has claimed to have personally communicated with "thousands" of non-treating beekeepers who evidently never lose ANY colonies "to mites"). There can be any number of reasons a given hive doesn't die over the winter, even a mite infested one - perhaps the infestation is not serious enough to break them at that point in time. Perhaps the colony happens to have little to no mites at all purely by chance, or due to factors outside the bees' genetics. Perhaps in their regions there happens to be a pathogen which kills out or controls mites - awesome! Perhaps weather is a factor. Perhaps residual pesticide traces in the wax of the brood cells can be at a level for the time being lethal to mites but not to the bees. Perhaps a particular strain of mites developed a natural genetic mutation which is killing them off or causing them not to properly incubate. Perhaps only a couple of colonies have hygienic behavior, and the drift of some of the workers to other hives has resulted in those hives being cleaned out temporarily, but not becoming factually "mite resistant". I could go on and on; really there's a multitude of reasons why a person could be having great luck with colonies that aren't dying over the winter. There are ways to test for many of them; but unfortunately that never happens with treatment-free beekeepers. They decide pre-emptively that they've genetically cleansed their stock because that's what they intended to do and they collected no evidence to suggest otherwise because they don't see the need to collect such evidence, and anyway the result is just as good so it's all the same to them. The term is "confirmation bias".

Varroa mites first came to the US some 30 to 40 years ago and they hit hard. There have been treatment-free beekeepers even since then, and that method has not resulted in a generally-resistant stock in all that time. If their method really worked without question, everybody would be doing it. It's not exactly like Checkmite+ has this huge lobby among beekeeping associations and is trying to repress the truth about chemical-free beekeeping. The fact is, most beekeepers have just come to accept mites as there. Like drought or small hive beetle, you help your bees deal with them. Some choose chemicals, some choose IPM. Some choose a combination.

Some choose to ignore them. It's certainly your prerogative to do so - don't get me wrong at all; it's not like I can tell you what to do and I wouldn't care to try. You could say it works for you, that your hives are just uber-colonies that are so hardy that they're practically ready to conquer the Earth and enslave mankind, well how can I say any different? I haven't been to your apiary and anyway, I want your bees to survive so it's all good. But if you say it works for you BECAUSE X, Y, and Z, and there's logical or factual problems with that argument, those problems need to be pointed out.

Originally Posted by rhaldridge

In particular, I like the example of Tim Ives, who has about 150 hives in northern Indiana and does not treat. He told me that when he first began keeping bees, about 12 years ago, he used packages, and suffered anywhere from 50 to 90 percent losses every winter. A few years in, he started collecting local swarms, and splitting from the best of these. His losses over the last few years have averaged about 8 percent. He still doesn't treat and he still doesn't feed, same as he did when he had those huge losses. I'm scratching my head trying to think of some explanation other than a change in genetics for his success.

You're finding it difficult to think of reasons why a beekeeper had significant losses when he first began, and experienced decreased losses over time? A little imagination yields a few possibilities. You say, likely because he told you, that the "only" thing he's done differently after all those years was switch from packages to swarms, am I right? And I don't doubt for a moment that he wasn't trying to deceive you when he said that. But we can't really know that's objectively true, and it's extremely unlikely that literally nothing else about his beekeeping has changed, isn't it? It's that confirmation bias thing again. His beekeeping seemed to improve after he switched from packages to swarms, so the connection got made and the significance of that change becomes petrified in his memory; whereas other changes that didn't immediately seem to have an effect - changing a brand of paint, changing the source of wax foundation (or going foundationless); changing the wood his hives are built out of, the Earth changing weather patterns in his region over time, locals using more or less pesticide/herbicide; these are all things which may not have seemed to have an effect, or which he may not have even been consciously aware of, but which might've been pertinent; he does not remember them because at the time they appeared inconsequential.

But let's assume he's completely right: Package genetics absolutely change from year to year, just like swarm genetics are different for each swarm; so it's not like he was getting the same faulty genetics with his packages year after year after year. Can you think of any reason aside from genetics that swarms have a higher survivability than packages? Any reason at all? I've already thought of several, but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!

Re: HITS method of mite control

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

I'd like to propose the same term for people who think that continuing to disrupt the ecology of the hive, continuing to contaminate the entire world beeswax supply with poisons and continuing to perpetuate bees whose genes are weakening the species will result in the salvation of beekeeping... the name fits perfectly...

Pssst, you know that thing - the whole never-touch thing, where you never check or treat for mites, and the "weak" colonies just die and the stronger ones "naturally survive" and all that? The bees already do that all by themselves, in the trees. What are you hoping to achieve by making them do it in artificial hives?

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!

Re: HITS method of mite control

There seems to be a sizable group who are convinced that that HITS is somehow pro treatment. How many times do I need to repeat myself?
I was simply troubled by the large number of, mostly new, beekeepers who seem not to recognize the impact varroa have.
Three steps.
1 I don't see 'em
2 I don't count 'em
3 They aren't a problem

I'd like to believe that even most tf beekeepers understand that varroa are a problem. Am I mistaken? Do you really believe that they aren't?

I can honestly say that I don't care if you are tf. My distress comes from those who've lost their bees and are willing to accept any explanation that doesn't include mites. I see it here on beesource. I get calls. They come up to me at meetings and farmers markets. ...all too often describing classic mite collapse. And the moment you ask about mites they start shaking their heads....no. Why is that?
I can honestly say I don't understand it.
You can take your tf/treatment arguments elsewhere. That horse has been beaten countless times.
Somebody...please....explain to me why any beekeeper would totally turn a blind eye toward the most serious pest we have?

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

Re: HITS method of mite control

It has nothing to do with chemicals, otherwise it would be called chemical free. Nor is it hands off. It is simple selective breeding for better bees instead of better mites.

And we are racially altering how we use antibiotics in humans because we have bred vastly stronger bacteria that can effect humans.

The wolf analogy is idiotic, you can't spray sheep with something that kills wolves, you can't build a fence that keeps out mites, nor are sheep in danger of being eliminated by wolves since sheep have evolved for millions of years to be wolf "resistant" (smarter, faster etc.)

Nor does evolution take eras to happen, like I said, we created DDT reistant fruit flies in my high school biology class in one term! The rate of evolution is dependent on the life cycle of the species, more generations = more potential change. This is why creatures with short life cycles can evolve very quickly, and why it's much much easier to make stronger mites than stronger bees and to make stronger bees than stronger people.

Re: HITS method of mite control

>Ya and while were at it we should stop taking antibiotics and medications because we are breeding weaker and weaker humans...

And if we humans were livestock, I would agree. But we are not livestock.

>Pssst, you know that thing - the whole never-touch thing, where you never check or treat for mites, and the "weak" colonies just die and the stronger ones "naturally survive" and all that? The bees already do that all by themselves, in the trees.

To the degree that they can with us constantly bringing in weak, not acclimatized genetics and watering down the ones that do survive. And that is my source for bee genetics... the ones that have survived already.

>What are you hoping to achieve by making them do it in artificial hives?

I don't make them. I let them. What do I get out of it? Healthier bees in my hives and I stop watering down the genetics in the trees resulting in them being healthier besides.

Re: HITS method of mite control

Nor does evolution take eras to happen, like I said, we created DDT reistant fruit flies in my high school biology class in one term!

You did not create them. According to your description they were already there; you merely directly killed all the non-resistant ones, so that all that was left to breed were already-resistant flies.

I'm not questioning the mechanics which led to that result; they're well documented. And I'm also not questioning that that's what no-touch beekeepers THINK they are doing by letting weak hives die out. I'm just pointing out that they're wrong - that's not actually what they're doing.

A dead fruit fly cannot pass on its genes.

A weak colony that is being strangled to death by mites can have as many as a couple of tortuous years to freely pass on its genes (through swarms and drones) before it finally takes the dirt nap.

It's not the same thing at all. The method accomplishes nothing. Or at least, it does not accomplish what you think it accomplishes.

Last edited by melliferal; 05-20-2013 at 01:34 PM.

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!

Re: HITS method of mite control

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

I don't make them. I let them.

Unless your method of making increase consists exclusively of setting out a complete, empty hive and letting swarms move in entirely of their own accord, you make them. Of course they will stay; but you put them there at the beginning. Why?

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

What do I get out of it? Healthier bees in my hives

Stop there; that is a circular argument. Whether the bees in your hives are "healthy" or not is only an issue because you've decided to put them in your hives; otherwise it wouldn't matter because there'd be no "your hives", right? So why "maintain" (for lack of a better term) artificial hives at all? The bees do just fine in the trees. The Bond method is all they do out there; it should be the perfect solution for you. What's actually missing from their tree-lives that you provide by putting them in "your hives"?

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

and I stop watering down the genetics in the trees resulting in them being healthier besides.

Genetics cannot be 'watered down'; the metaphor doesn't even make sense.

According to your theory of beekeeping, the bees should do just fine by themselves in the trees. Why do you think "your" artificial hives result in healthier bees than leaving them in the trees would result in?

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!

Re: HITS method of mite control

who said helthier than bees in trees? He said healthier bees period. My question is if they can live a long time in a tree without treatments, why can't they live in a box that long without treatments? I understand we don't rob trees, and that is going to have some effect, but if we are judicious about it why couldn't bees live in a box hive as long as in a tree?

Re: HITS method of mite control

>Stop there; that is a circular argument. Whether the bees in your hives are "healthy" or not is only an issue because you've decided to put them in your hives; otherwise it wouldn't matter because there'd be no "your hives", right?

> The bees do just fine in the trees. The Bond method is all they do out there;

Yes.

> it should be the perfect solution for you.

It is.

>What's actually missing from their tree-lives that you provide by putting them in "your hives"?

Absolutely nothing except that I manage them so that the swarms end up in my hives, and the surplus is in my hives and I can feed them in a severe drought.

>Genetics cannot be 'watered down'; the metaphor doesn't even make sense.

Sure it does. If you look at a gene pool, you can narrow that gene pool to strong bees, or you can "water down" that gene pool with weak genetics.

>According to your theory of beekeeping, the bees should do just fine by themselves in the trees.

Of course.

>Why do you think "your" artificial hives result in healthier bees than leaving them in the trees would result in?

I don't. But if I don't bring in weak genetics I don't weaken the ones in the trees. Mine are healthier because I let them be healthier by letting the weak die and by allowing the natural system of flora and fauna that live in the hive to be healthy. The ones in the trees are healthier for the same reasons IF I stop watering down the gene pool with weak genes.

Re: HITS method of mite control

I guess I'm just curious then. It's ok to use antibiotics etc on humans because were not livestock, I can get there obviously. My question then is do you think we are dooming ourselves because our genetics will get weaker and weaker, or are we able to compensate with technolgy/science or whatever. If the former I don't know what to say, if the latter why can't we do the same with livestock? Do you treat all livestock the same? If you have a horse that gets sick do you not treat it? If you have a problem with bot flies do you just let them go?

Re: HITS method of mite control

Originally Posted by Harley Craig

who said helthier than bees in trees? He said healthier bees period. My question is if they can live a long time in a tree without treatments, why can't they live in a box that long without treatments? I understand we don't rob trees, and that is going to have some effect, but if we are judicious about it why couldn't bees live in a box hive as long as in a tree?

It's impossible really to know how long bees are actually living in a tree. We already know for a fact that swarms will readily take up residence on abandoned comb; so how do you discern whether those bees you see in the tree year after year are the same bees, or whether the colony dies every now and then and the hive is co-opted by a swarm from elsewhere?

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!

Re: HITS method of mite control

Apologies, it's unseasonably hot and I must be irritable and argumentative. I'll leave off with I agree with you that whatever your philosophy is varroa shouldn't be ignored. It's here, it affects bees, deal with it (however it is you do that), and be aware of it at least.

Re: HITS method of mite control

Can anyone explain why it was necessary for this thread to be co-opted for the same, tired, old, useless debate of treatment vs tf?

I debate may be old, tired, and useless to you but I've never done it yet. I didn't get my turn!

But okay. To be fair, though, I think it's a matter of perspective. In your initial post you implied that people who do the "live and let die" method of mite control are wrong. Since most "tf" beekeepers use precisely that term to describe what they do, they're going to surmise you're talking about tf, so they will defend tf. Which will bring detractors, and the argument proceeds from there.

One thing I think almost everyone can agree on is that ALL VARROA DESERVE TO DIE!!!!! even if that is sadly impossible. In a fire, if at all practical.

Beeless since 2012; coming back in 2014. Suffering from apicultural withdrawal!